Obamacare ruled Unconstitutional

And how does one make profit: By offering the best product at the best price to those willing to pay. What about the liars, cheats, unproductive, whiners, hand-outs, hand-helds, incompetents, homeless, "it's not my fault", and on, and on, and on...? They have to relay on the goodwill of their family, friends, and neighbors, not the government's gun to take from those who "have" to give to those who "have not".

That's how the moral do it--free trade, not legalized armed robbery.

 

in 2020, the voters can choose, if they want Trump Care, they vote Trump, if they want single payer they vote dem

 

This isn't true. In every marketing class, you're taught two things: 1) Niche Market, and 2) How to generate more customers/consumers, etc to your brand, business, etc. That is the quintessential to how businesses operate. It's how that fat CEO is getting all of that money that the Left hates so much. The maximization of profit, and the maximization of sales often(but not always) go hand-in-hand.

One of those exceptions is the medical industry where high costs and low quantities are combining to saturate the health care industry. In health care, it is indeed preferable to "ration" it from a business perspective.

The high costs affect the different players, differently. Hospitals don't want high usage because it means they have to use more of their medical resources than they may typically have available.(That's why in-home treatments are so ideal.) Insurance companies don't want high usage necessarily because the compounding cost means they won't get a profit either.

So why were insurance companies in favor of the ACA? The subsidies. The subsidies(well, duh, it's name) subsidized the costs and therefore the insurance companies made a bigger profit. But what changed? The costs of high-risk patients, as well as the price controls within the ACA(Not to mention making optional things mandatory) virtually eliminated said savings.


So, what's the solution? My solution has been fairly simple: If we look at the difference in family plans vs single coverage, you'll notice that single coverage is MUCH cheaper than family plans. We need to segregate(break down) health insurance. We don't need an ACA, we don't need UHC. We need the opposite: A diverse pool of options. I've wanted to break it into three tiers: Adolescents(0-13), young adults(13-26) and then Adults(26-life). By breaking it into tiers, the cost is segregated. I also want to enable transferring health accounts. We can even tie it to social security if we wanted to. In this way, the individual health is treated, rather than as a single pool of individuals.

I've also thought of a separate "Health Savings Account" for those who don't necessarily want to sign up right away, but would like to sign up later when their financial situation makes it feasible. Just like taxes go into social security, we could have taxes going into the Health Savings Account, to be accessed during medical emergencies or to pay off the difference from the number of years a person was off the system.

This does a better job of the same goal, while appreciating the consumers and American freedom. I'm also pro-public option(Public/private doctoral care. Both have their pros-cons, both should be accessible.)

 

Are you actually reading your post before you submit them? I agree that they want to get the most profits..it’s their goal to have the most money, they get that by having the most clients...ie the most people paying

 

If your theory were true, and it's not, you'd have a difficult time explaining the reason that insures have left many health insurance markets nationwide including my own where I'm down to choosing among 3 providers rather than the dozen(s) or more prior to barrycare.

 

They have left not because of the fee market, but because Obamacare (the govt) has made it unprofitable for them to remain

 

Person walks in, ER asked why are you here, ER says see your GP in the morning sends them home.
Again Obamacare failed to do what Obama said it would do.

 

Mine announced his early retirement.

 

I just submitted mine for the year and was $190 short in reciepts so lost that in the "use it or lose it" clause. With the tax break I'll break even but why is that? As I recall when they were first created Dems didn want people to be blessed to build up "wealth" in the accounts, ie be able to pay for things themselves, because that would be unfair to the lower incomes. I have been hoping for changes in the law to at least let someone accumulate say $10,000 and then just replinish with tax free dollars.

 

Notice: No free market. How tragic for the individual...and the masses.

 

I think you may be talking about taxes - though it's pretty hard to tell.

And, there has never been a civilization that didn't have some form of taxes.

 

Medicare kills people, and Deadly Democrats want to force everyone on it

If Medicare punishes people for using too much care, is that really a good alternative to private insurance?

 

Yes - volume is ONE of the dimensions.

And, that is NOT the dimeension that results in insurance corporations choosing not to attempt to sell health coverage to everyone.

NOBODY is "rationing".

Nonsense. Hospitals can get any product they want. Previously, you talked about sales volume. Now, you are suggesting that hospitals don't agree with you on that.

In-home treatment is better because it is more personalized. In general, it is more expensive, as a provider (such as a doctor) can not see as many patients.

Insurance is being subsidized because people can not afforrdd the product as offered by insurance companies. The idea that insurance companies are getting money from the govvernment is ridiculous - what's happening is that the government is helping people buy standard offerings that anyone can buy.

This already happens. There are factors that insurance companies are allowed to apply based on the age of the insured. And, anyone can buy insurance as an idividual.

I'm quite surprised at your claim that families are more expensive to insure than thee sum of private policiees for the individuals.

You didn't think of HSAs. That idea has beeen around for decades.

Special purpose tax advantaged savings plans for healthcare are great for people who can already cover their health care AND have money left over to put in a savings account that is speciifically allocated for healthcare - rather than retirement, covering the possibility of circumstances such as switching jobs, etc.

There is PLENTY of evidence that this form of government assistance heelps those who have plenty of income and don't actually need government assistance. In general, Americans are having a hard time just saving for retirement - as proven by 401k data.

The "public option" idea was part of the ACA until it had to be removed in order to pass the bill. Unfortunately, Republicans chose healthcare as thee way of proving the party still had partiisan power - following their disasterous election cycle. And, there were one or two (literally) Dems who wouldn't vote for the ACA if it had a public option.

We could add the public option at any time, but Republicans dominate at present, and they have no interest.

 

Idiocy

 

This is a typical misunderstanding of free market capittalism. Sales volume is only one part of the equation for maximizing profit.

Products get designed and priced to appeal to some part of the population. And, that doesn't address the complexities of competing in a market that includes competitors. Numerous strategies enter when considering how to succeed when there are existing or potential competitors.

Also, when there are few "competiitors" in a particular market (such as healthcare) there really ends up being little price competition.

 

I'm just going to point out that it does not work that way.

I agree with your last sentence. Obama wanted a single payer type system. When he lost on that, he wanted there to be cost saving elements. But, in the end he lost on that, too.

What's disgusting is attacking Obama for not proviiding features he promoted.

YES, he wanted cost savings and promoted ways of providing that.

Yes, Republicans won - they prevented Obama from getting cost saving features.

 

He had an iron grip on both houses of congress when he got his law passed. But you want to try to blame republicans? Too amusing. Go to CSPAN and research their videos where you can watch as Democrats put a vise on the republicans proposed amendments that had any real changes in them.

 

Didn't the Affordable Care Act (ACA) add public insurance companies to compete with private insurance and then some of them went into debt and disappeared??? I can't remember whether it was because Republicans stopped the money that was going to them or they were totally unprepared for running insurance in the real world. But, in any case, they were non-competitive.

 

Well argued!

 

Yes. Republicans decided to make an assault on healthcare as a showpiece for partisan relevance.

And, the result is that we diidn't get the cost saving features that were designed as a part of the ACA.

The ACA was designed by bipartisan committees in the House and Senate. It took many months, during which Reepublican committeee members were free to comment on every action and consideration beeing made in committeee.

When the bill solidified to the point that modification required amendment, Republicans put forward MORE THAT 160 AMENDMENTS that were voted into the ACA.

Nothing that open or bipartisan has happened since then - except the bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed in the Senate and would have passed in the House had Boeher not blocked it.

 

Interesting.

My understanding is that the public option was removed before the ACA was finally signed into law.

I think it was removed after Lieberman threatened filibuster. He was conferencing with the Dems at the time and without him there was little chance of a successful cloture vote.

 

Yes, they did vote on single payer but it lost.

From what I remember, which may or may not be true, they added single payer and the requirement that everyone got insurance or face a fine were added together. They later took out the single payer but forgot to remove the requirement for insurance.

Anyway, they later settled on creating insurance companies to compete with the private sector, but some of them failed in the real world. They were starved for money.

 

Best response to nonsense. It's not about data. It's not about dollars. It's not about Medicare vs Obamacare vs Trumpcare vs Universal care. And it's not about market share; it's about the proper function of government. That function is simple: The protection of individual rights, not the social welfare of the miscreants, the malcontents, the malingers, nor is it for the social welfare of the unfortunate, the unlucky, or the misfortunate. The former are dealt with by the criminal justice system when necessary, and the latter, by friends, family, church, and charities where and when needed. It must never be by the government.

Why? Because the government is the power of the gun used to enforce each and every law and regulation that's created. However, the fundamental moral principle of the law is to direct that gun at criminals, not to rob a segment of the citizenry to pay for the rottenness or bad luck of another segment.

The gun must never be brought into the marketplace except to protect it from criminals. That's why all this arguing over percentages, and decimal points, and market strategy is smoke and mirrors design to hide this fundamental truth: Tyranny is growing and liberty is dying.

 

The ER is NOT required to treat routine illness.
And again Obamacare was promised to cut way back on ER visit because people would have an insurance policy. They have increased, it has nothing to do with a single payer system which Obama did not support.

We should praise him for it?

And his way failed to do it, we should thank him?

They didn't prevent him from getting anything, the Democrats passed it without them, Obama cut them out of it.

 

No, ER's have to spend time in evaluating each person who shows up. That's the end of the story, as that's the part that is far too expensive.

Whining about the ACA is ridiculous, as our government under Republican leadership has worked to make it fail.

No solution is EVER going to work when the majority are working for it to fail.

And, that is true whether it is the gov. or private business.